Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Illuminative Foundationalism

In my last
entry (here) I mentioned the very persistent and pervasive belief in God's
existence that has been at the core of my belief system – with the exception of
a brief spell of deep skepticism during my undergraduate years – for as long as
I can remember:

Prior to my conversion, I
had read bits of the New Testament, and despite not knowing exactly what I was
reading or what it meant, I had always been awestruck by the words of Jesus
Christ. Like the people of Jesus' own day I was "astonished at His
teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the
scribes" (Matt. 7:29). …. One of the first reasons I am a Christian, then,
is this immediate and inescapable conviction that God exists and has revealed
himself in the person of Jesus. My faith ultimately is not the result of an
argument or a scientific inference, but more like the sort of properly basic
belief mentioned earlier. For me the existence of God has always been
something of an axiom, a self-evident truth that holds prior to any evidence
adduced either in favor or against it.

In
other words my faith – not just in the generic God of theism, but in the God of
the New Testament, Jesus Christ – was and remains a basic belief. That seems a
reasonable enough position for a Christian believer to hold. However, I realize
that some might take issue with the claim that a belief derived from Scripture
could be more than simply basic but properly
basic.[1] Could it be that hearing the gospel under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit produces a conviction of truth that would be rational to believe without
any further evidence? I would answer yes. The key there is "under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit." As God inspires the message and the
message is heard, a conviction of truth arises in the mind of the hearer. "Faith
comes by hearing," says Paul in Romans, "and hearing by the Word of
God" (Rom. 10:17). What this means is that numerous truths of Scripture
may be properly basic (certain), as God inspires them and as the Holy Spirit
illuminates the mind as to their veracity.

On
this view, what I would call illuminative
foundationalism, the Holy Spirit's role in the transmission and acquisition
of truth (or the act of knowing) may
be said to complete what is missing in the two traditional epistemological
approaches, classical foundationalism and coherentism. Recall that classical foundationalism
requires acceptance of basic beliefs which are self-evident or incorrigible
(hence properly basic), upon which
other truths can be derived. Of course if the foundations are weak the entire
structure it supports is weak as well. Now it certainly seems self-evident
that, for example, the conclusion of a valid syllogism with true premises must
be true. But how to demonstrate it? Appeals to logic cannot help us, for the soundness
of logic is just what we want to establish. And obviously no empirical
observation can demonstrate that empirical observations are trustworthy. So
classical foundationalists face a regress problem.

Coherentism,
on the other hand, appeals more to the rational "connectedness" of the
system of beliefs. So if the belief system
is both grounded in truth and coherent, it should be able to provide us with knowledge.
Indeed it may yield considerable knowledge, as it draws strength from a
coherent "web" of beliefs. But it may not. The problem is that each
belief, each strand of the web, depends not on some definitive reality, but on
the amalgamation of the other beliefs
that make up the rest of the web. The entire web may thus remain disconnected
from the world as it actually is, much like a compelling work of fiction. Coherentists
therefore face a circularity problem.

The
best epistemology, then, will involve beliefs that are (1) grounded in an
objective reality (external to ourselves); (2) authoritative (trustworthy); and
(3) transmitted directly into us (closing
the gap between the objective reality external to ourselves and our subjective
perceptions of it). What I describe is the epistemology provided, in principle,
by biblical Christianity. According to Christian theology, God exists objectively,
that is, distinct from ourselves, transcending not merely each individual but
all of humanity. Therefore he satisfies the criterion of external objectivity.
God in his holiness also speaks truthfully and authoritatively through the
Scripture (the Word), thereby fulfilling the criterion of trustworthiness. Finally,
God through his Spirit speaks directly to the heart or the innermost
consciousness of his people. So he meets the third criterion of direct
transmissibility and accessibility (of truth). "He will guide you into all
truth," said Jesus of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).

Upon
these biblical-spiritual foundations a more or less reliable "system" of knowledge
may be constructed. This epistemology resembles Plantinga's "Reformed
Epistemology," which is drawn from the ineffable sensus divinitatis. But it expands much further. A biblical illuminative-foundational
epistemology also enjoys a much greater scope than the rationalist or
empiricist systems devised by modernists. As Paul Helm has stated,

The foundations of modern
epistemology, arising from the Enlightenment, are modest and minimalist, though
ambitious claims are made for them. After all, "I have a green
sensation" and "I know that I am conscious even when I am in a state
of systematic doubt" do not seem to amount to much. By contrast the
epistemic foundations of Christian theology embrace both our judgment about the
reliability of our own sensory and intellectual capacities, and further, the
sixty-six canonical books…. [2]

But
it all hinges upon faith, essentially a willingness
to believe what is true. Rationalists must trust that logic is capable of generating objectively valid truth,
just as empiricists must trust that our senses generate reliable perceptions of
the world. Plato argued in Theaetetus
that "Knowledge is true belief, based on argument..." Contemporary
philosophers suggest much the same, that knowledge may be defined as
"Justified true belief." All this is remarkably in keeping with the
insights of Scripture. Per the famous reading in Hebrews, faith is the
"evidence of things not seen," i.e., of things that cannot be
ultimately proven (Heb. 11:1). "According to your faith let it be done to
you," said Jesus in the context of a pending healing miracle (Matt. 9:29).
I will here take liberty to modify the words of Jesus only slightly, in the
context of the less spectacular "miracle" of knowing the truth:
"According to your faith let it be known
to you."

[Edit: I didn’t
know it when I posted this, but it turns out that Augustine had developed a
theory of epistemic "illuminationism" similar to mine but which was said to be decisively
refuted by Duns Scotus. There's nothing new under the sun, I guess. Per the Stanford Encyclopedia, Scotus, against Augustine, believed there to
be four kinds of knowledge that require no justification, hence no divine illumination: self-evident,
inductive, introspective, and sensory. These roughly parallel the modern criteria for properly basic beliefs. But since the notion of
proper basicality still leads to regress, illuminationism (acquiring knowledge supplied
by the Holy Spirit through faith) arguably remains more consistent and more complete than
classical foundationalism.]

[1] Alvin Plantinga has famously addressed this question with his
"Reformed Epistemology" program, wherein the primary epistemic input is
the sensus divinitatis, a sense of
God's presence or of God speaking directly to the conscience.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.